Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded✔ FIXED

In this week's comic, a Q&A correspondent asks a seemingly simple question; what is the lightest SPD pedal? In classic CW style, the answer goes wandering off into a dissertation on various clipless systems and recommends the Titanium/Carbon versions of the companies with the biggest promotional budgets - Time, Look, Speedplay.

Q1: What is the correct answer to the question?
A1: Shimano XTR, as only Shimano can use the registered trade mark SPD. The old single sided Dura Ace PD7810 was a bit lighter, but they have been out of production for a decade, or the current Dura Ace SPD-SL if suffixes are acceptable. None of these mentioned by CW

Q2: What is the correct answer if the questioner meant "SPD compatible"?
A2: Ritchey Pro Micro Road, not mentioned by CW

Q3: What are the correct caveats to warn the questioner about?
A3a: Pedal weights mean nothing if you don't include the cleat and cleat fixing screws too
A3b: Light weight means nothing if you can't get clipped in after dismounting and running through some mud, neither mentioned by CW

I know Cycling Weakly's incompetence will be news to nobody, but this seemed uniquely striking as I scanned through it in the shop before returning it to the shelf, just like every other proper cyclist does after reading Hutch's column.

Cycling Weekly reviewed two bikes last year. Each had a Shimano 105 groupset (might have been Ultegra,.) One group was in silver, the other anodised grey.
In the summing up at the end of the artical, One bike scored 4 for its groupset and the other 5!!!

They each are different I suppose, cycle sport has the edge over pro-cycling. columns written by tom danielson and bike tests by people like chris boardman riding bikes too big for him make pro-cycling a waste of space. It's funny how many ex-amateur riders have a problem with cyclign weekly simply because they are jealous of the coverage given to sportives and bike testers.

Procycling lost me when the railed on and on about running the dopers out, banning them for life yadda yadda, then hired a former doper to review bikes for them. They even got called on it, and kind of blew it off giving a bs answer on their incredible hypocrisy.

_________________This forum would be a better place if you had to know what you were talking about prior to posting. And if you took yourself less seriously.

Cycling Weekly reviewed two bikes last year. Each had a Shimano 105 groupset (might have been Ultegra,.) One group was in silver, the other anodised grey.In the summing up at the end of the artical, One bike scored 4 for its groupset and the other 5!!!

I've not bought the tin pot rag since!

As opposed to what? Every cycling magazine just cheerleads for whoever their sponsors are, or who they want to be. At least Cycling weakly has info on training, nutrition and medical issues, with the theme that the rider determines the bike's speed. They also do nice reviews of cycling routes and make me want to get on a plane to the UK. Most other rags: pay more money, go more faster. Few even talk about actually riding a bike.

Cycling Weekly has its pros and cons, but I loved the coverage before sites like Cyclingnews.com came to dominate cycling coverage(and before I had a home computer!!!).

Now its' cycling coverage is, inevitably, a day late and a penny short.

But I really enjoyed the way they covered training and nutrition. The reason I stopped purchasing the mag is because the price kept going up to the point where I felt it just wasn't worth it. Here in New York City I believe the price is now over 7 dollars.

If it wasn't for that I would still buy it, because CycleSport is totally useless.

Ever since its' publisher changed from whatever it was before to World Cycling Productions that magazine is the most reviled in my household.

All it is is a tome to Lance Armstrong and US Postal/Discovery and a secondary catalogue appendage for WCP. Total, complete and absolute garbage. I hate this magazine with a passion that borders on obsession.

Cycling Weekly has its pros and cons, but I loved the coverage before sites like Cyclingnews.com came to dominate cycling coverage(and before I had a home computer!!!).

Now its' cycling coverage is, inevitably, a day late and a penny short.

But I really enjoyed the way they covered training and nutrition. The reason I stopped purchasing the mag is because the price kept going up to the point where I felt it just wasn't worth it. Here in New York City I believe the price is now over 7 dollars.

If it wasn't for that I would still buy it, because CycleSport is totally useless.

Ever since its' publisher changed from whatever it was before to World Cycling Productions that magazine is the most reviled in my household.

All it is is a tome to Lance Armstrong and US Postal/Discovery and a secondary catalogue appendage for WCP. Total, complete and absolute garbage. I hate this magazine with a passion that borders on obsession.

World Cycling Productions have been dropped for 08 so Cyclesport US is being produced solely in the UK so should be an improvement.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum